« The Tale of Cameron Nutkin | Main | The Black Helicopters are coming »

Taken for Chumps

Call for council tax rise - and a charge for emptying your bin | Uk News | News | Telegraph

Households would have to pay an extra charge for rubbish collection under proposals for local government reform published yesterday.

A review carried out by Sir Michael Lyons also proposed increasing council tax paid by half-a-million homes, mainly in London and the South

So as "The Stall" distracted us "Marks" with his his juggling act and red box "The Mechanic" dips our breeches for the loot. Of course if you are on benefit, live up north or tick the box "Labour Voter" then the tax on living in a house won't worry you, for the rest of us this tax, unrelated to the ability to pay, is going to hurt more than any penny on the pint or tweaking of tax bands.

Comments

And we could always go back to what we used to do in my parents' day - burn domestic refuse either on the fire or in a garden incinerator, and bury degradeable waste in a pit behind the stables. Not exactly environmentally friendly.

Of course in the cities folk will just dump anonymised sacks of rubbish around the place at night.

We have a Council estate about 1km away which has become a favourite spot for the local property owning middle classes to dump old mattresses etc. Not as irresponsible as it sounds; the Council estates get free bulky items disposal and daily fly-tip clearance, whilst the rest of us who pay through the nose have to use commercial services and put up with a second-rate sweeping service.

People are quite inventive when it comes to equalising the pitch.

Though neither on benefit nor a Labour voter, I do live 'oop North' (note spelling), and I can assure you that council tax increases do indeed worry me, mine having increased by well over inflation for every year that it has existed, thanks to an incompetent, politically-correct and - did I mention - Labour controlled junta. But as for it being unrelated to the ability to pay, this is as it should be; the pricing of bread, Beluga caviar and Bentleys is fair; they cost the same to produce irrespective of who consumes them, so the price charged is the same. Further, if I consider the price to be too high, I can elect not to partake. Why should council services be treated differently? The issue to be addressed is that my money is being used to subsidise other people's sporting activities, theatre tickets and leisure pursuits. Until this stops, and council tax is used only to finance common services, it will always be unfair.

It appears to have passed Ian Bennett by, but not everyone pays the same council tax. To labour his analogy, it is as if the price of bread, Beluga caviar or Bentleys were determined by the type of car what one drove to the shop in or the cut of one's jib. The use of property values to determine to what extent one pays for council services (is that an oxymoron?) or subsidises activist groups with whose purpose in life one often violently disagrees is fundamentally unfair. Either one should have a charge based on one's ability to pay, i.e. a local income tax, or, as Ian Bennett implies, a fixed cost that everyone pays, irrespective of where they live. Since the comfortably well off already pay greater income taxes, I'd favour the latter, problem is, those who have become accustomed to not paying their way in life resent being asked to do so and tend to riot when such eminently reasonable and fair notions are introduced.
We're currently living oop North in Australia and the same stupid system applies here (based on unimproved land values) such that we pay twice as much as the people over the road just because we can see the sea and they can't and five times as much as the average.

Perhaps DocBud is misunderstanding. I am not suggesting "a fixed cost that everyone pays", I'm suggesting first that if I don't use a resource I shouldn't have to pay for it, and second that if I do use it, the price I pay should be the same as everyone else in the town pays. As things stand (and as they would also stand under a local income tax), not only do I pay for other people to use a sports hall, I could well pay more for not using it than they do to use it.

**not only do I pay for other people to use a sports hall, I could well pay more for not using it than they do to use it.**

Worse, as in the case of a local swimming pool here where the staff outnumber swimmers on most days, you could even end up paying more for not using a service than others do for not using it!

Post a comment